Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 73

Thread: training:practice:ability

  1. #11
    Member Shawn.L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Todd's comments are spot on.

    To add to this. I have a good friend who is a Master class USPSA shooter. He related to me that for a long time he was a B class shooter, and then at one period in his shooting he learned to let go, trust his hits would be there and spent one season in A class before making Master. It wasnt about increasing the amount of work for him, it was about getting an intuitive switch lit . Now that switch cant be hit if your not shooting at all, but I would bet that "just shoot more" doesnt do it either. I know one guy in particular at our club "dont need no stinkin training" who may shoot a couple thousand awful rounds a week, and while he prob is on the up side of average hes never going to move from there.

    The same Master I referred to didnt shoot a live round all winter , and shot his first live rounds at a match I attended that he crushed.
    Pittsburgh, PA host for www.aliastraining.com , and www.shivworks.com

    www.anti-fragile.net

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post

    What is the ratio you think is required to achieve a known ranking as measure of ability? In other words, how many classes per year, matches per month, practice sessions per week, etc. do you think is required to become a USPSA or IDPA Master? What about a USPSA "C"? and what is the output required to initially achieve that level vs. maintaining it once achieved?
    I don't think you'll be able to quantify the return on investment here. In everything I've done in life, if bar was set reasonably high (Master level classification, for example), then you could not get there without significant mileage. Same thing for getting above 4.0-4.5 NTRP rating in tennis. Same thing for getting good enough so double black diamond slopes are not a suicide mission. Same thing for benching your body weight, or whatever you bench goal is.

    This thing about Stoeger's 5000 rounds road to GM has been floated around internet recently as an example to the contrary. However, I read him saying he used to dryfire 2 hours daily, and now at one hour. This is a massive investment. There is absolutely nothing other than work that I've done in my life consistently for two hours every day. There is always mileage; how much of it depends on innate abilities, talent and how one's training interplays with said abilities. Some people dispute the importance of innate talent; these people don't know anything about the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    Do we set unrealistic goals or fail to understand the real commitment that is necessary to achieve certain goals?
    That's entirely individual, just as the amount of commitment required, see above. The next goal should be realistic in terms of absolute performance desired, understanding of things needed to be done to get there, and resources required. This is effectively what Todd has already said. The ultimate goal should be "the sky is a limit".

    What Shawn is referring to is commonly cliched as a "lightbulb moment", which is nothing but achieving a personalized, individual understanding of what and how a certain thing needs to be done in order to move forward.

  3. #13
    Site Supporter rob_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SE FL
    I don't want to get too hung up on the competition side of things, or making a ranking just to make it, I only used those as examples because they are known standards.

    I think that everyone has an "resting weight" so to speak, and that the resting weight will be higher after some initial instruction and practice than it is after just starting out. Similar to a person who will be of a certain physical size/weight if they just keep on eating what they are eating on a normal day and get no physical activity beyond what they do going about their normal day (excluding someone who's normal day of eating is more calories than their normal day burns).

    I understand "it depends" but I think that's kind of a cop-out BS answer. No shit it depends, and if that's all the discussion has to offer I'll let it go, but I hoped for a little more. It sounds like we're not even in agreement that there is a back-slide potential, so let's start there.

    Is it generally agreed that (and I understand there is no fixed numbers but there should be a relatively fixed formula) X amount of effort is required to maintain a particular level of skill and ability, and that <X will result in a degradation of same down to the "resting weight", and >X will result in an increase in skill and ability?

    Is it generally agreed that there is a "resting weight", or a level of basic ability beyond initial instruction and practice that one is unlikely to sink below?

    For example, let's take the FAST, considering where we're discussing this. For the average person if you just hand them a gun and say "shoot this there, then do this, then shoot that here" it's going to be a disaster. Spend a day giving them some instruction on the draw, sight alignment, trigger control, and reloads and they'll be exponentially better. Let them go away and practice it once a week for 100 rounds and they'll be better still. They will reach a point where it's really about a familiarity level that dictates their score. That is their "resting weight". What that resting weight is "depends" on them, but everyone has a resting weight. That is their score when they don't practice, don't train, etc. They are unlikely to sink below that, ever, beyond perhaps a quick re-familiarization with the gun if they pick it up after a long absence. If they practice some amount (let's say 2x per week, 100 rounds per session), they will improve. At some point they will reach a level where they can maintain with less input (perhaps 1x per week, 100 rounds per session) but if they do not maintain they will drop back to resting weight. If they continue at their previous rate (2x per week, 100 rounds per session) they will continue to improve.

    Which then brings up the other question, what is the ceiling, and what happens when you reach it? Going back to the games for a minute, I would suggest that the highest level shooters are all at their ceiling when it comes to manipulations and accuracy but that experience with their particular game and their ability to navigate the entire match as well as the individual stages makes the difference.

  4. #14
    I think I am starting to lose what this was about, or maybe I never understood it to begin with, but I'll try to hang in here for just a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    Is it generally agreed that there is a "resting weight", or a level of basic ability beyond initial instruction and practice that one is unlikely to sink below?
    Yes. I'd use a word "baseline". I think once a new baseline has been achieved, you won't sink below it. The key is that this new baseline has to be truly achieved at some point earlier. I'll use examples of two other sports that I am familiar with - tennis and skiing. I've seen people return to both after years of lay-off, and I had myself several years gap on the slopes and up to one year on a court. When I returned back, I never degraded to the beginner level, or my personal ground zero point.

    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post

    Is it generally agreed that (and I understand there is no fixed numbers but there should be a relatively fixed formula) X amount of effort is required to maintain a particular level of skill and ability, and that <X will result in a degradation of same down to the "resting weight", and >X will result in an increase in skill and ability?
    Yes, except I don't understand how you can come up with formula given individual variability in people's ability to retain the skill. I also think that degree of degradation is not linearly proportional to the absolute amount of <X effort. Part of it again individual abilities to retain skill and how much X in absolute terms one needs to be at/near peak. Part of it is that the skill itself is not a homogenous concept. My slow accuracy scores are generally reproducible even after longish layoffs, while my reloads break down if I don't drill them regularly. Same thing with my forehand vs my serve.
    Similarly, I don't think that absolute amount of >X is linearly proportional to improvement in skill.

    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post

    Which then brings up the other question, what is the ceiling, and what happens when you reach it? Going back to the games for a minute, I would suggest that the highest level shooters are all at their ceiling when it comes to manipulations and accuracy but that experience with their particular game and their ability to navigate the entire match as well as the individual stages makes the difference.
    I don't know about the ceiling. Seems like even highest level shooters are looking to further improve their stuff. The incremental amount of improvement is clearly small so graphing it would seem like a plateau, but I think they all are looking for their next level. Push the 2 inch dot target to 15 yards, get the draw under 1 sec, hit splits under 0.16 etc.

  5. #15
    We are diminished
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    I understand "it depends" but I think that's kind of a cop-out BS answer.
    You've tried to quantify things based on days spent at the range per month.
    • It depends on how much time is spent per day.
    • It depends on how many rounds are fired per day.
    • It depends on the shooter's skill level.
    • It depends on what he focuses on.
    • It depends on how efficiently he uses his time.


    It depends on too many variables to drill down to an easy formula.

    Is it generally agreed that (and I understand there is no fixed numbers but there should be a relatively fixed formula) X amount of effort is required to maintain a particular level of skill and ability, and that <X will result in a degradation of same down to the "resting weight", and >X will result in an increase in skill and ability?
    That's tautological. If you begin with premiss A ("X amount of effort is required to maintain") then necessarily it's true that "less than X will result in degradation."

    If you want to get more complicated, though, I'd suggest that X+1 will not automatically result in visible gains... though I guess that falls down to what our units of measure are. But whether it's days, hours, or rounds, it's probably incorrect to assume that adding one to your minimum required maintenance will give you measurable improvement.

    If what you're saying is simply that "if I practice below a certain amount my skill will degrade, and if I practice above a certain (other) amount my skill will grow," I don't think you'll find much argument.

    Is it generally agreed that there is a "resting weight", or a level of basic ability beyond initial instruction and practice that one is unlikely to sink below?
    There may be, but I've honestly never heard anyone explore it seriously as you're doing here.

    Plenty of LE/mil folks get high volume training followed by long periods of inactivity (in terms of shooting). There is a very definite and obvious decline in skill over that time. But I don't think anyone has ever taken the time to measure it. My SWAG is that while higher skill will result in a higher "resting weight" to borrow your phrase, there will also be a proportionally greater loss. In other words, a guy who struggles to make Marksman in IDPA probably won't be so much worse after putting his gun down for a year, but a guy who struggles to make Master will probably notice a real difference after the same amount of inactivity.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    SW Louisiana
    I've got to agree with Todd when he said "I don't think this is what you want to hear, but my best answer would have to be "it depends." It depends on the shooter, his regimen, his current skill level, etc." As a personal example, about 20 years ago I was firing over 100,000 a year. I was competing on average in 2 IPSC matches, 1 NRA/Bianchi Cup match, and either a ICORE or a Bullseye match every month. I don't know how well I could have been rated in assorted disciplines because I was shooting with duty gear and firearms, but I was able to hold my own and won a few state-level matches.
    I developed some physical problems, and 20 years later I no longer train regularly, I don't compete, and I might shoot 1000 rounds a year. But if we put aside the physical problems my actual shooting ability is probably 95% of what it was and my annual LEO qualification score has remained consistent.

    Don't know if that helps or not.
    "PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Columbus, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by YVK View Post
    This thing about Stoeger's 5000 rounds road to GM has been floated around internet recently as an example to the contrary. However, I read him saying he used to dryfire 2 hours daily, and now at one hour.
    I've seen him post the same, and, honestly, it kind of struck a chord with me. The thing is that guys like Ben and other shooters at his level didn't just magically become great shooters. They got there through hard work and dedication.

    What it really comes down to is, realistically, what are your goals and how hard are you willing to work toward them? I think it's reasonable to say that most people aren't going to put in a couple of hours worth of dryfire every day.

    But what are you willing to do?

    You need to set goals and work toward them. If you easily attain those, set them higher and push yourself harder. If you're struggling to attain them, you need to evaluate whether your goals are realistic for where you are now or if you need to rededicate yourself toward them.

  8. #18
    Site Supporter MDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Terroir de terror
    It sounds like folks who know a lot more than I do are having trouble coming up with a formula-type answer. I wonder if it would be possible to extract a formula from a data set? For example, I bet we could get some kind of answer if we mined the RangeLog database. If someone has the wherewithal to sort through all the unstructured info, we might even get something insightful from the journals on this forum. Not exactly the most rigorous approach, but it might get the OP some vague sort of answer to his question... I know I'd be interested in reading the results of such a study. :-/
    The answer, it seems to me, is wrath. The mind cannot foresee its own advance. --FA Hayek Specialization is for insects.

  9. #19
    Member John Hearne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern Mississippi
    I'm not convinced that all the variables are captured in the amount of time/rounds/matches someone shoots. There does seem to be some individual variation in how quickly one learns physical skills. Someone who is a natural athlete will improve more quickly than someone who develops more slowly.

    As an example, a guy I work with simply disgusts me. He is one of our DT instructors, plays with BJJ, and is a great all around athlete. I shoot better than he does but he does no work to maintain his level. If he got half way serious about his shooting, he would be a national class shooter. He likes to shoot but his interests are limited to cleaning our qual course and holding his own when we shoot man-on-man stuff.

    The other factor is mental. The quip - "If you think you can or you think you can't you're right" is correct. I've worked with people that seemed convinced that they couldn't shoot better and they fulfilled that expectation.

  10. #20
    If we are talking about competition development, then the truth is that the mental game is extremely important. I'm an IDPA Marksman but I have ran a 3.74 FAST, 1.8 Bill Drill, and a 280 FBI Qual in training; thus, I should be scored higher than an IDPA Marksman on paper. I haven't done any mental management training until recently, and I feel like with just what I have learned on the mental management side in a short time, I will be moving up a division very soon. At my last major match, I came in 79 of 119, and it was only my 4th match ever, so you simply cannot overlook the experience factor. I had never seen, let alone shot, several of the props at the match and had no clue on the best strategy to run them. I was on a n00bish squad and I distinctly remember our strategy on a long distance swinger being "shoot it 2 times on it's first pass, and 2-3 on its second pass." We probably wasted a ton of time on that prop alone (I know on that 1 prop, I lost 2 places in the overall standings as my first two shots on the swinger were -0).

    If we are talking skill development, then in my opinion it is dry fire >>> live fire. In fact, I would say that I get almost 50% more benefit from dry fire practice than I do live fire practice, so it is more efficient for me. Now that I have a SIRT, I shoot almost all of my speed focused drills dry fire, and my live fire (until I broke my arm) consisted of 2 cold tests per week, finishing off the session by pushing my accuracy standards (i.e. my weakness). I try to train 7-10 hours a week, with about 70%-80% of that being dry fire. I find that any less than 7 hours a week and I don't progress as much the next week, and beyond 10 hours a week I start to overtrain and get burned out. The lowest amount of time a day I train when healthy is 30 minutes, and I will go up to about as much as 2.5 hours. With my broken arm, I am averaging about 5 hours a week totally strong hand only. Another thing that is absolutely critical for efficient time management is performance tracking. I track every shot fired, every drill shot, every minute spent at every session. If I hit on a training technique that works, I exploit it as long as I can. Recently, for example, I started taking .5 seconds off of my iHack par each week until I got it down to 2.35 seconds with 6 out of 9 hits from concealment at 5m. This is still working, as I am at about 3.65 seconds for 6 out of 9 at 5m from concealment SHO. Work load + efficiency in training = success in my opinion. It isn't that difficult to quantify really, I think that 7-10 hours a week for 2-3 years will yield the skill level of a Master class shooter (pure skills, not the classification...see 1st paragraph). I just completed my first year doing this, and plan to be at that level of skill by this time next year.

    edit: I just realized it is 1am here, and I haven't slept much in the past couple of days, so I apologize for any grammar errors.
    http://thedownzerojourney.wordpress.com/

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •